Why Anarcho-Communism Is An Oxymoron

in #anarchy6 years ago

Why Anarcho-Communism Is An Oxymoron

ancomoxymoron.jpg

I have been clearing up my thoughts about this issue for a few weeks now. Anarcho-Communism (or libertarian-socialism) has been on my mind for a while. The ideology can be broken down into the two words that make its name, Anarchy, and Communism.

Anarchy (according to the dictionary):

Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Anarchy (according to Proudhon):

A none-hierarchical form of organizing society

Much confusion has occurred based simply around the fact that different people decide to believe in the different definitions. The dictionary meaning states that the absence of government is related to the "absolute freedom of the individual", meaning that, in a libertarian sense, the lack of government aggression towards its citizens is freedom. The dictionary meaning leads me/us to believe that the absence of forced taxation and other government interferences, leaves the people with complete ownership of their property, and the liberty to do so with that property as they please, as well as voluntaryism. Naturally, a system that upholds to these ideas is a capitalistic one. Anarcho-Capitalism has been defined.

Proudhon's definition also hints towards the absence of government, and the liberties of the people, however, it is much broader, and can be easily twisted to suit the user of this definition. Many left-anarchists prefer to use this definition, as it fits in nicely with the absolute equality of communism, but only works with the idea that capitalism means hierarchy and the oppression of the proletariat, that it means less liberties and more slavery. Now, the best way to pull apart Anarcho-Communism is to use its other name, Libertarian-Socialism.

Libertarianism (according to the dictionary):

an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Socialism (according to the dictionary):

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Libertarianism advocates minimal government and minimal state intervention into the lives of citizens, basically meaning that citizens should have maximum liberties and rights, which to me, includes the right to private property and the right to free trade. Socialism on the other hand, states that the means of production should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, which immediately eradicates the individual right to property and the right to free trade.

Already we have an incompatible set of ideas. How can one be a libertarian, or an anarchist, if they believe that no-one has the right to do as they so please? That no-one has the right to the fruits of their labor (property)? If you believe in anarcho-communism, you are as bad as the government that your goal was to dissolve. In order to instill these involuntary ideals on a population, their must be some kind of force, their must be some kind of aggression, some kind of hierarchical organization that sits on-top of the population, governing. If their was no aggression from a governing body, this ideology would not work, it would immediately dissipate into free-market capitalism, simply because socialism/communism is involuntary.

So, if you believe that you can be an anti-state communist, you are heavily fooled. Simply by believing that the best thing for the population is your anti-property and anti-freedom ideas, you are just as authoritarian as the government you hate, perhaps worse. You cannot be an anarchist if the first thing you wish to achieve is the total control of the population. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron!

My Blog: Sailormann

Other Posts:

Socialism Sucks #2 - Theft

Free Thought

The Effects Of Keynesian Economics

Proudhon Letter To Marx: Proudhon To Karl Marx

#SocialismSucks #FMCR

steemitbanner.png

Sort:  

I don't agree with communist ideology and wouldn't want to live in such a "community" although in many ways myself and most Americans already do.

That said, I think conflating hierarchy with government is a mistake here. The first test for any ideology is voluntary interaction. The definition given of libertarian says "minimal state intervention." So mininal violence and coercion.

I would argue that libertarian socialism is a statist ideology because libertarians still believe in government and the right to rule.

Whereas (logically consistent) an-com ideology would advocate individual freedom while aboloshing State hierarchical institutions and supporting, or at the very least ignoring any voluntary hierarchy.

Just my thoughts on the subject. I still don't really see how large scale would play out. I dont really think it would have to work large scale because there would be hundreds of thousands of communities and populations broke into their own respective areas living by thier own respective rules. They can think that my owning property is theft and start community where an-coms control the means of production and then trade with ancapistan for bitcoin.

"an-com ideology would advocate individual freedom while aboloshing State hierarchical institutions"

Communism, socialism, any similiar ideology cannot advocate individual freedom, they just cant. The basic principal of these ideologies is that the people give up their rights and freedoms as indivudals, in order to gain democratic control of production as a collective.

"I think conflating hierarchy with government is a mistake here. "

I disagree. The government is a form of hierarchy. It forces itself to the top of society, and then uses aggression in order to tell people how to live. However, hierarchy can also be voluntary so I see your point. Relating to communism though, voluntarism is irrelevant.

Communist ideology cannot advocate individual freedom. I think an-com could. I'm not saying most of them do. The idea that a person of communist persuasion would do enough research and maybe think critically enough to add anarcho as a prefix shows at least some common ground.

Really for a communist to sieze the means of production, he/she must admit self ownership to be able to sieze anything in the first place. Thats where the anarcho comes in. There are a bunch of people who think rent is theft. So instead of begging the government for some law to be passed, they started living in vans and rv's and, by extension, participate in black and grey markets everywhere.

Im not agreeing with the ideology. Im just saying an-coms aren't the enemy.

I aggree with what your saying, but you have to understand the actual limits of individual freedom when it comes to any sort of communism. An anarcho-communist can advocate for more rights and freedoms, but eventually these rights and freedoms will conflict with communism.

Thats pretty much where im at too. I agree I just think if people want the changes they say they want, namely getting rid of the State or creating parallel voluntary systems, there needs to be more effort to work together and find common ground with people that may have different ideology but the same end goal.

Plus I just enjoy discussing these ideas. Thank you!

there are three kinds of people in the world
makers, takers, and fakers,

There are three kinds of
People in the world makers,
Takers, and fakers,

                 - everittdmickey


I'm a bot. I detect haiku.

Loading...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70351.33
ETH 3563.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.72